Is there any innovation in gaming?

[FrostyBoy]

Hm, a waterfall with physics attached would contribute to gameplay.

Imagine if I stood under it while attacking? It would probably knock me over from the weight, causing me to lose balance and die.


Currently I see this gaming industry shifting about, sorting itself out, the best remaining pushing the industry forward (blizzard, etc), others failing, and the rest retiring. We are not in the AI-building stage just yet, we are still in the graphics-building stage, and that's a good thing. Graphics should be the first step. AI next.

I have attempted to make a few games myself, TBS, Adventure, RTS, and I have found that creating objects (or in other words, graphics) is like a tool to attach extra gameplay to. A bit difficult to explain myself. But oh well.

[Standup]

We are not in the AI-building stage just yet, we are still in the graphics-building stage, and that's a good thing. Graphics should be the first step. AI next.

Not sure I'm convinced about that although it varies from game to game.

Looking at Heroes Might+Magic V which radically redesigned the graphics engine but left the game play relatively untouched. I've gone back to HOMM3 because I don't think the graphics add anything. You also end up with very high system requirements for not much more game. Railroad Tycoon 3 is another one where I think the emphasis was wrong. Whizzy new 3D graphics and some very interesting but poorly implemented new game features - trade goods move on their own for example.

reading the reviews of Gothic 3 the developers seem to have decided to get the graphics working first and then gameplay through the patches. Difficult to to do the other way around but maybe they got their priorities wrong?

[FrostyBoy]

Standup, it varies from game developer. Taking Blizzard as an example, you can see their graphics engine is relatively low-end and gameplay high-end. (Exclude their console game, thats a different story). They have found an artistic style which they are happy to use again and again and the fans are happy with it too, so there is no need to try and impress the audience with next generation graphics.

However, graphics needs to be pushed and pushed hard, we still have a fair way to go before we reach photo-realistic graphics, but once we do reach there, that's it, there's no room left to go, whereas AI has a lot of room for expansion - far more than graphics. So this is why I say it is important that graphics be the first step to reach an era of being able to create "perfect games". Why is it important we complete the graphics stage first? Because graphics has a relatively easy roof to reach, once we have reached that roof, we will be able to expand the AI into all of what has been developed for the graphics.

AI is linear, art is not. Complete the graphics engine first, then attach the AI to it.

[El_Cid]

Originally posted by Sn00py
...........

AI is linear, art is not. Complete the graphics engine first, then attach the AI to it.

One problem with this is people might get bored of spending their money on yet another fairly dull game(been there, done it, seen those AAA graphics before - yawn), and might decide to not spend their money?

I'm thinking in particular about the kind of market the games industry has changed itself to concentrate on i.e the 'mass market'. They maybe dont know alot about games in general, but they do know about spending their money, and where the best value lies?

From a purely development point of view you are right though - get the stuff out the way that has a limit, then concentrate on the less obvious and potentialy unlimited(kinda thing).

Some interesting snipets that have a relevence to the discussion:

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=11796

http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20061117/qotw_01.shtml

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Sn00py

However, graphics needs to be pushed and pushed hard, we still have a fair way to go before we reach photo-realistic graphics, but once we do reach there, that's it, there's no room left to go, whereas AI has a lot of room for expansion - far more than graphics. So this is why I say it is important that graphics be the first step to reach an era of being able to create "perfect games". Why is it important we complete the graphics stage first? Because graphics has a relatively easy roof to reach, once we have reached that roof, we will be able to expand the AI into all of what has been developed for the graphics.

AI is linear, art is not. Complete the graphics engine first, then attach the AI to it.

Well not really. You could spin it the other way - we have reached the point (some would say some time ago) of diminishing returns on graphics, now we need to make more progress on other things like AI.

The reason why I think in practice it will follow your preference more than mine is above.